Is Trump repeating Bush’s worst mistakes?

The early signs of the new Trump
administration’s policies towards the Middle East suggest that he
is
poised to repeat some of the Bush administration’s most fatal
errors.

Donald Trump at the National Prayer Breakfast February 2, 2017 in Washington, DC. Picture by Win Mcnamee DPA/PA Images. All rights reserved. Even if one subscribes to the questionable
concepts of collective guilt and collective punishment, it is quite
clear that Donald Trump’s decision to ban citizens of seven
Muslim-majority countries from entering the US serves only one
purpose: To satisfy the alt-right,
a loose set of far-right
ideologies, groups and individuals united in their opposition to
multiculturalism, social justice movements and mainstream
conservatism whose torchbearer Steve Bannon is a key power broker
within the new administration.

Notably, not one of the 9/11
attackers came from
any of the seven countries affected. In fact, according to an
analysis
by the Cato Institute,
none of their nationals has killed Americans on US territory between
1975 and 2015.

While the ban doesn’t make the United States
any safer, it is likely to make both the US and the rest of the world
a less secure place. Just like the Bush administration’s “global
war on terror” rhetoric, the ban will help extremist demagogues to
convince potential followers that the US is at war with Islam. But
while Bush repeatedly emphasized that it was not, Trump doesn’t
even distinguish between ‘moderate’ and less ‘moderate’
Muslims. Both his rhetoric and his actions alienate
the Muslim community and the leaders of Muslim-majority states
which are key to fighting domestic and international Islamic
extremism.

Trump's most
outlandish and dangerous populist slogans could become US policy.

As scary as the ban and its potential
ramifications might be, what it tells us
about what to expect over the coming four years is alarming as well.

Trump
first called for a “for a
total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”
during the early stages of a campaign that was full of outrageous
promises. The executive order putting the ban in place shatters any
remaining hope that there might be a difference between the candidate
and the president. It also indicates that the Republican party isn’t
able or willing to contain him. As a result, even Trump's most
outlandish and dangerous populist slogans could become US policy.

Just like the ban, his
promise to “quickly and
decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS”, if kept, is likely to make
things worse rather than better. As
of 25 January, 2017, the US led
coalition has conducted a total of
17,734 air strikes in Iraq and Syria. It is hard to see how to
further expand the campaign and intensify the bombing without
destroying entire cities and causing a major increase in civilian
casualties. More bombing raids are unlikely to force ISIS to back
off. But just like the Iraq war provided a boost for recruitment for
al-Qaeda, ISIS recruiters know all too well how to use them to their
advantage. Pictures of Syrian and Iraqi children killed by American
bombs are highly effective in this regard.

Teheran responded to Trump's travel ban by barring the US wrestling team from participating in the Freestyle World Cup
competition in the western city of Kermanshah. Further retaliation
might follow, as Teheran
has already announced that
“Iran
will implement the principle of reciprocity until the offensive U.S.
limitations against Iranian nationals are lifted”.

After his first ten days in office, it looks like his
administration is poised to repeat some of the Bush administration’s
most fatal errors.

These developments could be the first steps
towards reigniting a dangerous and unnecessary conflict whose
permanent resolution was closer than ever.

The United States and Iran have a shared
interest in fighting ISIS. Led by the reformist cleric Hassan
Rouhani, the Iranian government has been able to normalise relations
with the West. Until now the reformists have enjoyed sufficient
support for their course among the population and the country’s
religious leadership.

But
the progress that culminated in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal framework
should not be taken for granted. In fact, the current situation
reminds of the early 2000s.

At the time,
US-Iranian relations were at their best. In 2000, US Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright had acknowledged
US responsibility for the 1953 coup against the
democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddegh for
the first time. The United States was about to embark on a crusade
against Iran’s main security threats: The Taliban in Afghanistan
and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, the reformist Iranian
government around Mohammad Khatami was interested in improving
relations with the US, hoping the west would
lift its crippling economic sanctions in return.

Rather than seizing
the moment, Bush decided to include Iran in his “axis of evil”.
His rhetoric against the Iranian regime became increasingly
aggressive, while western sanctions continued to
hurt the Iranian civilian population. As a consequence, both the
religious establishment and the public lost confidence in the
moderate camp around Khatami. The ultra-conservative hardliners won
the upper hand again, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president and stayed
in power for eight long years.

History might very well repeat itself. During
the Republican primaries, Trump spent much of his campaign blasting
Jeb and George W. Bush
over the Iraq
invasion, falsely
claiming that he had opposed the
war. But after his first ten days in office, it looks like his
administration is poised to repeat some of the Bush administration’s
most fatal errors.

About the author

Ragnar Weilandt is a doctoral researcher at the Université libre de Bruxelles and the University of Warwick as well as an occasional journalist. He tweets at @ragnarweilandt.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.